PDA

View Full Version : Guantanamo Bay = Jihad University?


tony hipchest
06-19-2008, 09:44 PM
i rarely get too fired up about articles such as this, especially in this political enviornment. for instance, i usually look at what happened at abu gharib as evidence of us being a "dumbed down nation" (some recent presidents are proof of this) and nothing more.

but this "war on terrorism" is looking alot like the failed "war on drugs".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080618/wl_mcclatchy/2969823

(This is the third installment of McClatchy's Guantanamo: Beyond the Law series, which can be viewed in full at www.mcclatchydc.com)

GARDEZ, Afghanistan - Mohammed Naim Farouq was a thug in the lawless Zormat district of eastern Afghanistan . He ran a kidnapping and extortion racket, and he controlled his turf with a band of gunmen who rode around in trucks with AK-47 rifles.

U.S. troops detained him in 2002, although he had no clear ties to the Taliban or al Qaida. By the time Farouq was released from Guantanamo the next year, however - after more than 12 months of what he described as abuse and humiliation at the hands of American soldiers - he'd made connections to high-level militants.

In fact, he'd become a Taliban leader. When the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency released a stack of 20 "most wanted" playing cards in 2006 identifying militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan - with Osama bin Laden at the top - Farouq was 16 cards into the deck.

A McClatchy investigation found that instead of confining terrorists, Guantanamo often produced more of them by rounding up common criminals, conscripts, low-level foot soldiers and men with no allegiance to radical Islam - thus inspiring a deep hatred of the United States in them - and then housing them in cells next to radical Islamists.

The radicals were quick to exploit the flaws in the U.S. detention system.

Soldiers, guards or interrogators at the U.S. bases at Bagram or Kandahar in Afghanistan had abused many of the detainees, and they arrived at Guantanamo enraged at America.

The Taliban and al Qaida leaders in the cells around them were ready to preach their firebrand interpretation of Islam and the need to wage jihad, Islamic holy war, against the West. Guantanamo became a school for jihad, complete with a council of elders who issued fatwas, binding religious instructions, to the other detainees.

Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby , until recently the commanding officer at Guantanamo, acknowledged that senior militant leaders gained influence and control in his prison.

"We have that full range of (Taliban and al Qaida) leadership here, why would they not continue to be functional as an organization?" he said in a telephone interview. "I must make the assumption that there's a fully functional al Qaida cell here at Guantanamo."

very long article. unless youve already dismissed it or dont give a flying french fry, click the link.

personally, i think anyone who really deserved (or needed) to be detained in guantanamo, deserved to be shot on site before the plane ride . remember 9-11?

and dont even get me started on the huge failure of the "war on drugs". just look at the correlation of that with the explosion of meth.

MasterOfPuppets
06-19-2008, 09:56 PM
personally, i think anyone who really deserved (or needed) to be detained in guantanamo, deserved to be shot on site before the plane ride . remember 9-11?

:busted::busted::busted: sure woulda saved the taxpayers billions !!!

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 09:57 PM
especially in this political environment.

What makes this one so special?

tony hipchest
06-19-2008, 10:23 PM
What makes this one so special?because every year "united we stand" becomes more of just a catchphrase.

we are so divided with our current 2 party system we always have 50% of the people thinking theyre right all the time = 100% of a non objective nation, ( people please spare me, i am well aware that 3%-7% are probaqbly TOTALLY objective, as i feel i am) and the media is getting in on the act BIGTIME.

just tonight, o'reily was bragging about how much of the total percentage of advertising dollars foxnews gets opposed to msnbc. (something like 43% to 13%).

articles like this (even if 100% true) will automatically be discredited by "the other side" as rhetoric or spin.

Maybe McClatchey is an adulterer who belongs to a church :noidea: and will be labeled a hypocrite because of it, to discredit him. :hunch:

anyways, this is why i take these things (articles) worth a grain of salt. not this one though.

revefsreleets
06-19-2008, 10:33 PM
I read this earlier this week. Makes sense to me. It's the same thing as taking petty drug dealers, tossing them in the slammer (due to ridiculously harsh penalties for drug possession) with hard core lifelong criminals and then releasing the newly educated (and previously relatively harmless) hard core criminals back into society.

I'm waiting with baited breath for the new kid with 26 posts to tell me just how incredibly wrong I am...

tony hipchest
06-19-2008, 10:56 PM
I'm waiting with baited breath for the new kid with 26 posts to tell me just how incredibly wrong I am...i'll be waiting too, ready to lmao.

another thing that kinda gets me is we appearantly are trying to imprison common afghan criminals (US prision system operates under the guise of REHAB and punishment). we are supposedly at war with terrorists and arent plugging these fools in the head.

in the meantime, pat tillman gets killed and we spend so much effort to keep it on the *hush*.

MasterOfPuppets
06-19-2008, 11:07 PM
whatya think the operating cost of G-MO is ,compared to a case of .223 rounds?

Preacher
06-19-2008, 11:11 PM
another thing that kinda gets me is we appearantly are trying to imprison common afghan criminals (US prision system operates under the guise of REHAB and punishment). we are supposedly at war with terrorists and arent plugging these fools in the head.
.


Yep...

Of course we can't do that....

Because if we did... it would be war crimes..


Oh wait... ahhhh nevermind.

Jeremy
06-19-2008, 11:21 PM
just tonight, o'reily was bragging about how much of the total percentage of advertising dollars foxnews gets opposed to msnbc. (something like 43% to 13%).

Of course they do, people want to know what they can blame on Mexicans and what cute blond girls have gone missing in the past few days.

But I have to wonder if SlimeBill figured in the financial bath Fox is taking on their miserable failure, Fox Business Channel.

millwalldavey
06-19-2008, 11:46 PM
Of course they do, people want to know what they can blame on Mexicans and what cute blond girls have gone missing in the past few days.


Amen!

Hammer Of The GODS
06-21-2008, 09:28 AM
It's like Tony is reading my mind..........

When I was in the Marines fighting in the desert the first time we engaged these sheet wearing nutjobs I was direct witness to the way our government deals with war. Example..... Each Marine was given only 20 rounds(yeah I said 20) and had direct orders NOT to shoot until shot at even if it was point blank range. On one occasion we were taking sniper fire and were told NOT to return fire! So we sat there laying in the sand praying we would make it while this guy pearched on a water tower took shots at us. When he ran out of ammo he was taken prisoner. Then 2 armed MPs took him to the front of the shower line then straight to the front of the chow line so he could eat! Meanwhile US soldiers who hadn't had a shower or a hot meal in months watched the piece of shit who just spent the last 9 hours tring to kill us get first dibs on the very things we craved daily! And to rub the salt deeper, one Marine had to give up his protective gear against chemical weapons because that scumbag didn't have any. Imagine standing in formation and being told "one" of you HAS TO give up your gear to the prisoner! Man I'm getting pissed all over again......:banging:

Forgive my ranting guys ... got caught up in the moment........

Let's face it folks, bi-partisan government is a failed experiment. When you take a group of people and split them in two and tell them only one side gets the majority you instanly get the sniping and preverbial walls between them that we see everyday. In the end WE lose!

I have said it for years now....... Political correctness will be this countrys downfall!

I honestly thought that 911 was going to WAKE this country up. We ended up hitting the snooze button.:doh:

I'm glad to see that some of my Steeler breatheren are on the same page as me.

With the shit that goes on in this world today sometimes I look to the sky for that giant burning rock to bring us sweet relief from the insanity!

GBMelBlount
06-21-2008, 09:38 AM
Hammer Of The GODS

I have said it for years now....... Political correctness will be this countrys downfall!

I honestly thought that 911 was going to WAKE this country up. We ended up hitting the snooze button.:doh:

I'm glad to see that some of my Steeler breatheren are on the same page as me.

With the shit that goes on in this world today sometimes I look to the sky for that giant burning rock to bring us sweet relief from the insanity!

I completely agree Hammer.....and thank you for your service. :usa:

Hammer Of The GODS
06-21-2008, 09:48 AM
I completely agree Hammer.....and thank you for your service. :usa:

Thanks GB. My chest used to swell with pride because I served my country. Now I see so much contempt and indifferance towards our troops that I sometimes question why I put my ass on the line for "some" of the people in this country.

Then people like you make me realize that in between all the assholes and degenerates are "good people" worthy of sacrifice! Thanks for giving a shit!:chuckle:

Jeremy
06-21-2008, 10:39 AM
Let's face it folks, bi-partisan government is a failed experiment.

Wow.

That's the dumbest thing I have ever read on a message board.

millwalldavey
06-21-2008, 01:35 PM
Once, when bi-partsan government failed, we ended up with Hitler.

Jeremy
06-21-2008, 02:39 PM
Once, when bi-partsan government failed, we ended up with Hitler.

Iraq, Iran, the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea are all countries that don't practice bi-partisan politics.

Hammer Of The GODS
06-21-2008, 03:31 PM
Wow.

That's the dumbest thing I have ever read on a message board.

So you believe the ridiculous amounts of back and forth argueing all the while coming to a stalemate is working to the publics favor? You can honestly say that adding a third party with an equal amount of power to the process is dumb? Your against having a government that doesn't jump on one issue simply because the other side doesn't agree? When was the last time "both" parties agreed on something other than thier pay raises? It's always left or right with no middle ground! If you are so closed minded to the idea that 3 parties puts an end to the left and right side standoffs and allows for issues to be voted on based on merit and NOT power play grandstanding then you are either naive or YOU are dumb!

Once, when bi-partsan government failed, we ended up with Hitler.

Where did I say I wanted a dictatorship?!

Iraq, Iran, the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea are all countries that don't practice bi-partisan politics.

See above!

Preacher
06-21-2008, 04:55 PM
Hammer....

The words of a famous...and infamous Navy Seal come back to me when reading your post. He was talking about the attitude of a state department worker in the mid-east.

"Why should anyone else die when Good ole Americans can die instead?"


The politicization of Vietnam rears it ugly head in many places.

Now, there are too many lawyers, too many politicians, too many been counters, and too few warriors in charge of wars.

Period.

Jeremy
06-21-2008, 05:04 PM
2. Do not make needless, incessant usage of:

-Emoticons.
-Line breaks or ALL-CAPS.
-Nested quotes.
-Giant fonts.
-Bad language. Mild cursing is tolerated in moderation, but be careful of your tone, especially against fellow posters.

Anyway.....a third party (or a fouth fitth or sixth) is an awesome idea.

Here are a couple you might want to check out if you're really serious about getting behind a third party:

The US Centist Party (http://www.uscentrist.org/)

The Moderate Party (http://www.modparty.net/)

I've been following the Moderate Party and I've been hoping they would catch on. But no luck so far.

millwalldavey
06-21-2008, 05:18 PM
[SIZE="3"]Where did I say I wanted a dictatorship?!


See my example and the few that came after. All non-bipartisan governments. All dictatorships. You never said you wanted one, but that seems to be what you're gonna get with one.

Preacher
06-21-2008, 05:51 PM
2. Do not make needless, incessant usage of:

-Emoticons.
-Line breaks or ALL-CAPS.
-Nested quotes.
-Giant fonts.
-Bad language. Mild cursing is tolerated in moderation, but be careful of your tone, especially against fellow posters.

Anyway.....a third party (or a fouth fitth or sixth) is an awesome idea.

Here are a couple you might want to check out if you're really serious about getting behind a third party:

The US Centist Party (http://www.uscentrist.org/)

The Moderate Party (http://www.modparty.net/)

I've been following the Moderate Party and I've been hoping they would catch on. But no luck so far.



-If you're not a Moderator, don't feel compelled to act like one . . . Do not copy-paste quote sections of the rules at people

You know how annoying it is to have rules copy and pasted at you? :chuckle::chuckle:




Also check out the constitution party...

Hammer Of The GODS
06-21-2008, 07:44 PM
2. Do not make needless, incessant usage of:

-Emoticons.
-Line breaks or ALL-CAPS.
-Nested quotes.
-Giant fonts.
-Bad language. Mild cursing is tolerated in moderation, but be careful of your tone, especially against fellow posters.

Anyway.....a third party (or a fouth fitth or sixth) is an awesome idea.

Here are a couple you might want to check out if you're really serious about getting behind a third party:

The US Centist Party (http://www.uscentrist.org/)

The Moderate Party (http://www.modparty.net/)

I've been following the Moderate Party and I've been hoping they would catch on. But no luck so far.

Does this size suit you? I read the rules when I joined. I didn't feel that the size 3 font was GIANT by my reasoning. I would like to see the standard font at 3. I personally like it better. You are the only one to mention it so far. If I get a complaint from someone else who isn't upset with a comment I made and is just nit picking, then I'll stop.

As for your recomendation of the centrist party, well it's funny you should mention it. Because I almost posted this video on the "American" centrist party when I was trying to make my point to you earlier. Looks like we are in the same frame of mind, I think you might want to hold the insults to someones intelligence until you get the whole story and don't make assumptions. Nobody likes to have thier comments labeled "dumb". Truce....:drink: (wait.... to many emoticons??) :toofunny:

1G_aTIVmrO4

Hammer Of The GODS
06-21-2008, 07:51 PM
Hammer....

The words of a famous...and infamous Navy Seal come back to me when reading your post. He was talking about the attitude of a state department worker in the mid-east.

"Why should anyone else die when Good ole Americans can die instead?"


The politicization of Vietnam rears it ugly head in many places.

Now, there are too many lawyers, too many politicians, too many been counters, and too few warriors in charge of wars.

Period.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to add a 3rd party to the already bulging government. I would want to scale back the number of R's and D's to make room for the 3rd. I am definately a believer of to many chiefs and not enough indians!

Jeremy
06-21-2008, 08:25 PM
-If you're not a Moderator, don't feel compelled to act like one . . . Do not copy-paste quote sections of the rules at people

You know how annoying it is to have rules copy and pasted at you? :chuckle::chuckle:




Also check out the constitution party...

Uh....yeah.

revefsreleets
06-23-2008, 11:08 AM
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Dino 6 Rings
06-23-2008, 11:09 AM
I wonder if the CIA has any "plants" down in Gitmo learning the ways of the enemy and sending them back to "work with the enemy" when they are really helping us.

As for the "don't return fire" post.

Ok, I understand how from a soldier or marine's perspective that would be troubling. But you have to look at the big picture of Good vs Evil. It would be really easy to take the steps the enemy takes and simply slaughter everyone not wearing the US Flag. It would be very easy to allow Army Dogs or Marines to go into a village and exterminate the entire population without quarter and maybe even impale a few bodies a long the way as a message to others. We could also crucify some local leaders just to make our point that we were not going to be "nice" about our warfare.

Its the slippery slope. Once you start returning fire then you start firing first. Once you start firing first, well then the targets start to all look the same and the line between the enemy and civilians is blurred very easily. Once that happens, then we are no better than the people we are fighting.

We don't make videos of us cutting off their heads. We don't quote the Bible when we blow up a building. We don't line up prisoners next to a ditch and shoot them all in the back of the end, dumping them in and covering them up as if they are just diseased animals.

We do prosecute those in our military that make errors, take things too far, or are unfair on the battle field. We don't use flame throwers because of the damage they cause. We tell our soldiers that shooting people with a .50 cal machine gun is not allowed, and that only vehicles and equipment can be shot with that cal round.

We try to be the "better" Army, the "better" warriors. There is a reason for it. We are the "good guys".

Being Bad is so much easier, and we chose to take the harder route.

Hammer Of The GODS
06-23-2008, 12:28 PM
As for the "don't return fire" post.

Ok, I understand how from a soldier or marine's perspective that would be troubling. But you have to look at the big picture of Good vs Evil. It would be really easy to take the steps the enemy takes and simply slaughter everyone not wearing the US Flag. It would be very easy to allow Army Dogs or Marines to go into a village and exterminate the entire population without quarter and maybe even impale a few bodies a long the way as a message to others. We could also crucify some local leaders just to make our point that we were not going to be "nice" about our warfare.

Its the slippery slope. Once you start returning fire then you start firing first. Once you start firing first, well then the targets start to all look the same and the line between the enemy and civilians is blurred very easily. Once that happens, then we are no better than the people we are fighting.

We don't make videos of us cutting off their heads. We don't quote the Bible when we blow up a building. We don't line up prisoners next to a ditch and shoot them all in the back of the end, dumping them in and covering them up as if they are just diseased animals.

We do prosecute those in our military that make errors, take things too far, or are unfair on the battle field. We don't use flame throwers because of the damage they cause. We tell our soldiers that shooting people with a .50 cal machine gun is not allowed, and that only vehicles and equipment can be shot with that cal round.

We try to be the "better" Army, the "better" warriors. There is a reason for it. We are the "good guys".

Being Bad is so much easier, and we chose to take the harder route.

Dino, your working in a grey area here. In fact it is more black and white. As soldiers we were given the order "under no circumstances do you fire until fired upon" this included the enemy taking aim down his barrel at point blank range. Now obviously I new before I joined that I might come under fire. But to ask a soldier to look at the bussiness end of an enemy rifle and just stand there until he shoots you all in the name of political correctness and the standards that civilians sitting home watching from the comfort of thier lazyboy expect from the military is unrealistic and flat out fuct up! For christ sake a police officer is given the abilty to defend himself when a criminal raises a weapon or poses a threat to the officers life! PLEASE tell me where I am wrong in my feelings of resentment and angst towards these policies? I agree we need to be the "better men" but NOT at the expense of young soldiers who are in life threatening situations trying to survive.

Dino 6 Rings
06-23-2008, 12:38 PM
Dino, your working in a grey area here. In fact it is more black and white. As soldiers we were given the order "under no circumstances do you fire until fired upon" this included the enemy taking aim down his barrel at point blank range. Now obviously I new before I joined that I might come under fire. But to ask a soldier to look at the bussiness end of an enemy rifle and just stand there until he shoots you all in the name of political correctness and the standards that civilians sitting home watching from the comfort of thier lazyboy expect from the military is unrealistic and flat out fuct up! For christ sake a police officer is given the abilty to defend himself when a criminal raises a weapon or poses a threat to the officers life! PLEASE tell me where I am wrong in my feelings of resentment and angst towards these policies? I agree we need to be the "better men" but NOT at the expense of young soldiers who are in life threatening situations trying to survive.

Its more than just political correctness. Its being in the right side. I understand that instinct is to shoot the bastrad before he gets off a shot. Especially when you're trained to fight.

but think about this. In Korea, we have guys standing on the border, for 40 years. Facing off against North Koreans. Tanks pointing at each other. And no one fires.

In Germany, on the border between East and West, our guys had to stand their and face off against Russians, with guns drawn, and not fire.

You are very much in the Right to have feelings of angst towards the policy. But it is the policy none the less and you must abide by it. Sorry, to say it.

I'd much rather allow our Soldiers and Marines to shoot everyone on sight. Trust me, I'm totally against having Gitmo because I see no need to take prisoners. But it is the current policy and any Marine or Soldier must follow his or her orders. Even if they disagree with the orders.

tony hipchest
03-27-2009, 07:43 PM
:bump: since a "panic and blame obama" article seems to be the "news" of the day, i thought it was only appropriate to remind everyone bush has been planning on doing the exact same thing since 2007 but couldnt pull his head far enough out of his ass to figure out how to do it.

either that, or he just figured it would be easier to pawn off the self inflicted problem (and failed policy) to the next administration. whats new?

Table of Contents

An eight-month McClatchy investigation of the detention system created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has found that the U.S. imprisoned innocent men, subjected them to abuse, stripped them of their legal rights and allowed Islamic militants to turn the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into a school for jihad. Here's a guide to the contents of our online report.




Day One: We got the wrong guys


Day Two: 'I guess you can call it torture'


Day Three: A school for Jihad


Day Four: 'Due process is legal mumbo-jumbo'


Day Five: 'You are the king of this prison'



DETAINEES PROFILE DATABASE: Read 66 profiles and data cards of former U.S. detainees. Many have photos, audio or video.

READ THE EVIDENCE: Browse an archive of documents obtained by McClatchy in the course of this investigation.

VIDEO


About the project: Beyond the Law


Interview: Abdul Salam Zaeef
Interview: Nazar Chaman Gul


Interview: Haji Galib Hasan


Interview: Mohammed Nassim


Interview: Akhtar Mohammad


Interview: Amir Jan Ghorzang


Interview: Syed Ajan


Interview: Abdul Salam Zaeef


Interview: Mohammed Aman


Interview: Mohammed Naim Farouq



GRAPHICS (PDF FORMAT)




Supreme court rulings on Guantanamo


Detainee abuse and the rule of law


Facts about the detainees


Stories of 4 detainees


Where detainees were held


Detainees' homelands


The king of Guantanamo


Map of Afghanistan, Pakistan



PHOTO SLIDE SHOWS




Images of detainees held at Guantanamo


Images of detainees held in Afghanistan


Faces of detainees


More faces of detainees





heres the updated link to the article in the OP http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/38779.html

X-Terminator
03-27-2009, 08:04 PM
And as I said in the other thread, we wouldn't be worrying about this right now had our military been allowed to do its job to its fullest capability.

TeeJay
03-27-2009, 11:19 PM
Just so you know where my taxes are going............

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1162332/Fury-Islamic-extremist-abused-British-troops-given-24-hour-police-protection.html

Two lines of Police should'ave taken a tea break, and turned a blind eye for a few minutes. Problem solved.

We are gonna rip right through your brain
We got the lethal power
It is causing you sweet pain Oh sweet pain
When we start to rock
We never want to stop again